S.U. Khan, J. - (1.) This is tenants' writ petition arising out of eviction/release proceedings initiated by landlord respondents 2 to 6 on the ground of bona fide need under Section 21 of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972. Release application was registered as P.A. Case No. 3 of 1983. Mohd. Israil and others v. Mohd. Iftikhar and another . Property in dispute is a house bearing number 5/589/1, rent of which is only Rs. 5/- per month. In the release application, copy of which is Annexure '1' to the counter affidavit, it was stated that landlords/applicants No. 1 and 2 Mohd. Israil and Mohd. Israr Ahmad were residing in a house bearing No. 5/498, that Mohd. Israil applicant No. 1, had a large family consisting of himself, his wife, five sons and four daughters and they all were residing on the ground floor of house No. 5/498 in one room and one Varandah containing three doors, that on the ground floor of the said house there was a Sehan and a Baithakasa also in which applicant No. 1 Mohd. Israil was doing hosiery work along with his three sons. It was further pleaded that on the first floor of the landlord's house there was a room of about 15 feet x 15 feet in which landlord-applicant No. 2 Mohd. Israr Ahmad was residing along with his wife, one son and one daughter. It was also stated in para 4 of the release application that there was constant quarrel in between the wives of landlord-applicant No. 1 and 2. It was stated in the release application that in case house in dispute was released applicant No. 2 Mohd. Israr Ahmad would shift his residence in the said house and one of the sons of applicant No.1 who was very much liked by applicant No. 2 and his wife would also reside with them. The Prescribed Authority held that need of the landlord was not bona fide. Prescribed authority also held that tenant would suffer greater hardship in case of eviction. Prescribed Authority, therefore, rejected the release application through judgment and order dated 21.9.1983. Against the said judgment and order landlords-respondents filed R.C. Appeal No. 422 of 1983. III A.D.J. Saharanpur through judgment and order dated 29.3.1988 allowed the appeal, set aside the judgment and order passed by the Prescribed Authority and allowed the release application of landlord, hence this writ petition by the tenant.
(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner-tenant has vehemently argued that the theory of strained relations in between wives of landlord-applicants No. 1 and 2 was merely set up to evict the tenant and, in fact, neither the relationship was strained nor proper evidence for the said fact was led. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also argued that in the release application the only ground taken was that of strained relationship between the wives of the two landlords. With the second argument 1 do not agree in the least. In the release application, copy of which is Annexure T to the counter affidavit it was clearly stated in para 3 that applicant No. 1 Mohd. Israil along with his family of 11 members was residing in one room and varandah with very great difficulty. Similarly in para 5 it was stated that in case house in dispute was released, then they would get some more accommodation for residence and the dispute between the wives of the two landlords would also come to an end. In para 6 it was stated that the eldest son of applicant No. 1 was unable to marry due to scarcity of accommodation. The total number of family members of the two landlords was 15 and total number of rooms at their disposal was only 3 out of which one was being used for business purpose. Even if the factor of strained relationship between the wives of two landlords is completely ignored and banished from consideration, still the need for additional accommodation was more than genuine. The view of the Prescribed Authority that the need was not genuine was utterly illegal. If 15 persons of landlords' family are residing in two or three rooms, no sensible person can come to the conclusion that the need is not bona fide. In such circumstances the need may be described not only as bona fide but pressing, acute and dire. In the Appellate Court it was also pleaded by the tenant that a shop vacated by Bhagwandas was let out to Nihal Chand. The said shop was allotted to Nihal Chand by Rent Control and Eviction Officer. In any case availability of shop is not at all relevant for considering the bona fide need of the landlords for residential purposes. Another property pointed out by the tenant to be available to the landlords has been found to be a godown by the Appellate Court, which was in tenancy occupation of one Subhash Chandra since 1975. Just as a tenant cannot compel the landlord to convert a shop into a residential room similarly godown also cannot be compelled to be converted into residential accommodation. Appellate Court found that the said godown did not contain latrine, bath room or kitchen. '
(3.) In respect of comparative hardship, Prescribed Authority took the view that the landlords were residing in their houses comfortably while tenant had no other house to shift. By no stretch of imagination the residence of 15 persons in two or three rooms can be said to be comfortable. Such approach is utterly illegal. Appellate Court has found that the tenant did not make any effort to search alternative accommodation. Appellate Court also found that-some of the sons of the tenant were earning and hence they were in a position to arrange alternative accommodation. Supreme Court in B.C. Bhutada v. G.R. Mundada, A.I.R. 2003 SC 2713 has held that if the tenant does not make effort to search alternative accommodation after filing of the release application, then balance of hardship would tilt against him.;